Re: [tcpm] Gen art LC+TC review of: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-ao-crypto-02

Gregory Lebovitz <gregory.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 24 March 2010 09:02 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=XsucsDllG+Ba1ccWkb6D7sUq1HiUHrUcyAb6RugiBGDUW11J3gKVsTDG7EbihkAwId lEdl5rkUl0bNfxE9a0CNDCCzuivnBX8Vq9/kb4J9JNKSdrsuKAUAhVEMZhQzESJpaSUt j4shdqbhwG1zAjIYpYI+NrWavi1XgRjIwuVFc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <OF3F0692B4.81438E23-ONC22576E1.004371FB-C22576E1.007ACA25@il.ibm.com>
References: <OF3F0692B4.81438E23-ONC22576E1.004371FB-C22576E1.007ACA25@il.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:02:57 -0700
Message-ID: <f1548841003240202n1c63fee0w3afa0be220fd68b4@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Lebovitz <gregory.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Avshalom Houri <AVSHALOM@il.ibm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016364ee3b64744590482883265"
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, tcpm@ietf.org, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, ekr@rtfm.com
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Gen art LC+TC review of: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-ao-crypto-02
Precedence: list

Avshalom,
Thanks for your review. The indicated changes inline below have been made in
-03, which will be issued shortly. See inline...

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Avshalom Houri <AVSHALOM@il.ibm.com> wrote:

> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
>
> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-ao-crypto-02
> Reviewer: Avshalom Houri
> Review Date: 2010-03-09
> IETF LC date: 2010-03-10
> IESG Telechat date: 2010-03-11
>
> Summary: The draft is ready for a standard track RFC (see minor issues and
> nits).
> The document is a reasonable basis on which to build the salient part of
> the
> Internet infrastructure.
>
> Major issues: None
>
> Minor issues:
>
> Line 211
>    This is the initial specification of required cryptography for
>
> Why it is initial? Initial RFC?
>

TCP-AO is brand new, and this is the first ever specification of required
cryptography for -AO. We assume, as time goes on, that others could follow.
No change to text.


>
> Lines 232-238
> I do not see the requirements only MUSTs.
>

Not sure what you mean here. The "Requirement" is "MUST" as opposed to
SHOULD or MAY. No change.


>
> Line 260
>    "MUST" to implement, in order to drive vendors toward its use, and to
>
> Should the IETF include something as a must in order to drive its
> implementation?


This decision/text was re-worked several times and reflects WG consensus. No
change.


>
>
> Line 862:
>    above.  We simply attempted to "put a fence around stupidity", in as
>
> Maybe change the language for the RFC?
>

makes sense.  s/stupidity/foolishness/


>
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> Line 182
>    verification between to end-points.  In order to accomplish this
> ->    verification between two end-points.  In order to accomplish this
>

done



>
>
> Line 384
>                    starts = 1.
>
> -> starts at 1.
>

because "i" is a counter, I think being precise with the "=" is appropriate.
No change.

Thanks again for the review,
Gregory.


>
> --Avshalom
>
>
>


-- 
----
IETF related email from
Gregory M. Lebovitz
Juniper Networks

Re: [tcpm] Gen art LC+TC review of: draft-ietf-tc… Gregory Lebovitz
Re: [tcpm] Gen art LC+TC review of: draft-ietf-tc… Avshalom Houri